Zevachim 96b (צו:) — the Talmud in English

And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not say

that one may make klei sharet that are not made of metal

except of wood

alone; this is what he permits.

But earthenware, no.

Everyone agrees that one may not make klei sharet of earthenware.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yehuda was accustomed

to study

before Rami bar Ḥama.

One day,

he left him,

meaning that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yehuda left Rami bar Ḥama,

and went

to study

before Rav Sheshet.

One day, Rami bar Ḥama encountered

Rabbi Yitzḥak

bar Yehuda,

him.

He said to him,

Rami bar Ḥama said to Rabbi Yitzḥak:

“The duke has taken me by the hand, and the scent has reached his hand,”

meaning: “When the duke grasped me by the hand, the scent of royalty was absorbed into my hand!” This is a parable concerning the haughty, who seek to stand in the place of the great. Is it

because you went before Rav Sheshet that you have become like Rav Sheshet,

that you have already become like Rav Sheshet!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rami bar Ḥama:

“No.”

I did not intend to leave you and study from him out of pride. Rather,

for this reason

I went to study from Rav Sheshet, because

my master,

for you are my master,

when I ask him a matter, he resolves it for me through reasoning.

However, afterward,

when I find a Mishna—

it refutes it!

That is to say, Rabbi Yitzḥak would raise a question, and Rami bar Ḥama would resolve it for him only through reasoning. When Rabbi Yitzḥak would find some beraita opposing Rami bar Ḥama’s reasoning, that reasoning would be refuted, because the reasoning of an amora cannot stand against a beraita taught by a tanna.

But

when I ask Rav Sheshet a matter,

when I ask him something,

he resolves it for me from a Mishna,

he answers me from a beraita [because the beraitot were arranged in his mouth],

so that even when I find a Mishna and refute it,

even when I find another beraita opposing Rav Sheshet’s beraita, this does not refute him, because

it is one Mishna against another Mishna!

Rav Sheshet’s teaching nevertheless stands, since there is a beraita supporting his words, and therefore it is not refuted by the other beraita.

He said to him,

Rami bar Ḥama said to Rabbi Yitzḥak:

“Ask me a matter”

ask me about a teaching,

so that I can resolve it for you

through reasoning

as though it were a Mishna,

for when you examine the beraita, you will find that it accords with my reasoning.

Rabbi Yitzḥak asked him

Rabbi Yitzḥak asked Rami bar Ḥama:

If one cooked

sacrificial meat

in part

of a vessel

while the other part of the vessel was outside the fire, is the vessel

required to undergo merika and sheṭifa in its entirety, or is it not required

to undergo merika and sheṭifa in its entirety?

And Rami bar Ḥama answered him: Its law is that it

does not require it, just as is the case with sprinkling,

namely, the sprinkling of sin-offering blood that splashed onto a garment, concerning which the Mishna states that only the place of the blood requires laundering.

Rabbi Yitzḥak challenged this:

But it was not taught that way!

We do not find a beraita that states as you say, and you said that you could resolve the matter from a beraita or a Mishna.

He said to him,

Rami bar Ḥama said to Rabbi Yitzḥak:

“It stands to reason, based on the case of a garment,”

like the law of a garment stated in the Mishna.

Just as a garment requires laundering only in the place of the blood

and not the entire garment,

so too, a vessel

of metal

requires merika and sheṭifa only in the place of the cooking

and not the entire vessel.

Rabbi Yitzḥak challenged this:

“Are the cases comparable?”

The law of a garment is not comparable to the matter under discussion, is it?

Blood does not diffuse,

as it does not spread throughout the garment, but

cooking does diffuse

throughout the vessel and is absorbed within it entirely.

Furthermore,

one can raise an additional difficulty, for

it was taught:

There is

a stringency with regard to sprinkling

of sin-offering blood that splashed

over merika and sheṭifa.

And there is

a stringency with regard to merika and sheṭifa over sprinkling.

How so?

What is the stringency with regard to sprinkling? Sprinkling applies to both outer sin-offerings and inner sin-offerings,

for the law of laundering applies to both,

and it applies before the sprinkling. Unlike merika and sheṭifa,

which do not apply to inner offerings, and do not apply before the sprinkling, since the law of merika and sheṭifa applies only to offerings that are eaten, as immediately afterward it is written: “Every male among the priests shall eat it.”

How so?

What is the stringency with regard to merika and sheṭifa? Merika and sheṭifa apply both to the most sacred offerings and to lesser sanctified offerings; if one cooked in part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires merika and sheṭifa. Unlike sprinkling.

Thus, there is an explicit beraita that the law of a garment onto which blood splashed in part is not like the law of cooking that took place in part: cooking in part of the vessel requires merika and sheṭifa throughout the vessel.

The Gemara concludes:

He said to him

Rami said to Rabbi Yitzḥak:

“If it was taught,

it was taught,”

and one does not challenge the beraita on the basis of reasoning.

The Gemara inquires:

“And what is the reason

that merika and sheṭifa are required throughout the vessel when one cooked in part of the vessel?

The verse states: ‘If it was cooked in a copper vessel,’

and we derive:

even

if it was cooked

in part of the vessel,

the entire vessel requires merika and sheṭifa [because the cooking diffuses throughout it].

We learned in the Mishna:

Both the most sacred offerings

and lesser sanctified offerings require merika and sheṭifa.

The Sages taught:

It is stated, “This is the law of the

sin-offering”

at the beginning of the passage.

I have derived

a source requiring merika and sheṭifa

only for a sin-offering.

As for all offerings, from where

do we know that the vessels in which sacrificial meat was cooked require merika and sheṭifa?

The verse states:

“Every male among the priests shall eat

it; it is most sacred.”

And this is explained in the Gemara below.

Could I include teruma

such that, if teruma was cooked in a vessel, the vessel would require merika and sheṭifa?

The verse states:

“Every male among the priests shall eat

it,”

and this was stated after merika and sheṭifa. We derive from the word “it”:

“It”—excluding teruma; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: The most sacred offerings require merika and sheṭifa; lesser sanctified offerings do not require merika and sheṭifa.

What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason? For it is written: “It is most sacred.”

Apparently, this indicates specifically

the most sacred offerings—yes.

But

lesser sanctified offerings—not.

However,

since “it” was necessary to exclude teruma, by inference, lesser sanctified offerings do require merika and sheṭifa.

Thus, what is written, “most sacred,” is not meant exclusively; rather, it includes all offerings except teruma.

And Rabbi Shimon can say to you that the derivation from

“it,” as we said above,

is that Rabbi Shimon expounds “it” as referring to a fit offering and not a disqualified one. Rabbi Shimon excluded a sin-offering that had once been fit and then became disqualified, whose blood does not require laundering.

We challenge this:

And

if

teruma does not require merika and sheṭifa

according to both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, is that so?

But it was taught: A pot in which one cooked meat may not be used to cook milk. And if one cooked

milk in it, the entire mixture becomes forbidden if the meat imparted

a discernible taste.

If one cooked teruma in it, he may not use it to cook non-sacred food. And if he cooked in it, if it imparted a discernible taste,

the non-sacred food becomes forbidden to non-priests. Thus, a vessel in which one cooked teruma requires rinsing with boiling water in order to expel the teruma absorbed in the vessel, so that it will not prohibit the non-sacred food cooked in it.

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: It is necessary

to state that teruma also requires rinsing with boiling water, and that the exclusion of teruma from the law of merika and sheṭifa

is only in accordance with what the Master said: If one cooked

sacrificial meat

in part of a vessel, the entire vessel requires merika and sheṭifa.

And we infer:

Here,

if one cooked

teruma

in part of a vessel,

he need not

rinse it with boiling water

except in the place of cooking.

For teruma requires rinsing with boiling water only in the place of cooking, whereas sacrificial offerings require merika and sheṭifa throughout the vessel.

The Gemara offers another answer:

Rava said: It is necessary

to exclude teruma from the law of merika and sheṭifa

only in accordance with what the Master said,

as it is stated, “And he shall scrub it and rinse it in water,” and we derive:

“In water,” and not in wine; “in water,” and not in diluted wine,

wine mixed with water.

Here,

with regard to teruma, it is possible to perform the rinsing

even with wine, and even with diluted wine.

For the Torah was particular only about removing the forbidden substance absorbed in it; therefore, with teruma, wine and diluted wine are also effective.

The Gemara offers another answer:

Rabba bar Ulla said: It is necessary

to exclude teruma from the law of merika and sheṭifa

only in accordance with what the Master said: Merika and sheṭifa are performed with cold water,

for they must be rinsed with cold water after being rinsed with hot water,

here,

with regard to teruma, it is possible to perform the rinsing

even with hot water

alone, and there is no need afterward for merika and sheṭifa with cold water.

The Gemara challenges this:

This works well according to the one who says that merika and sheṭifa are performed with cold water,

for one can distinguish between them as we have said.

But according to the one who says that merika is performed with hot water and sheṭifa with cold water,

which constitutes their rinsing with boiling water,

what can be said?

What aspect of teruma was excluded [for everyone agrees that teruma also requires rinsing with boiling water like the others]?

The Gemara answers:

An additional rinsing,

vessels in which sacrificial offerings were cooked, after the rinsing with boiling water—which is their merika—must be rinsed with cold water. But vessels in which teruma was cooked do not require rinsing with cold water after their rinsing with boiling water.

Mishna:

Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked in it from the beginning of the Festival,

a vessel in which one cooked sacrificial meat from the beginning of the Festival,

he may cook in it throughout the Festival

without merika and sheṭifa. At the end of the Festival he performs merika and sheṭifa, because there are many offerings during the Festival and he cooks in it every day; each day it expels what it absorbed the previous day, before it becomes notar.

And the Sages say: Until the time permitted for eating

it is permitted to cook in it without merika and sheṭifa until the end of the time allotted for eating the offering—that is, for a shelamim offering, two days and one night, and for a sin-offering, one day and one night. Thereafter, even if he cooked in it in the interim, it requires merika and sheṭifa, lest some of the first absorption remained in it and has now become notar.

Merika and sheṭifa

how are they performed?

Merika—

like the merika of a cup

used for Grace after Meals, which must be thoroughly rinsed and washed on the inside.

And sheṭifa—

like the rinsing of the cup

used for Grace, which requires rinsing and washing on the outside.

Merika

with hot water

and sheṭifa with cold water.